Convicted paedophile takes Corrections to court for taking his toupee

[Obelisk]

Toupee or not toupee? That is the question.

(Combo breaker!)

 

[eran0004]

ie: it doesn't matter how much you need it, you have the rights you have.

The importance of the right depends on the need. Imagine what would happen if you removed the right: for someone with a lot of power and influence it wouldn't make much of a difference. For someone who is in a vulnerable position it is much more important.

 

[Danoff]

The importance of the right depends on the need. Imagine what would happen if you removed the right: for someone with a lot of power and influence it wouldn't make much of a difference. For someone who is in a vulnerable position it is much more important.

I now officially have no idea what you're talking about. It might be on topic? Not sure.

 

[eran0004]

I now officially have no idea what you're talking about. It might be on topic? Not sure.

A right is more important if you are in need of it. Prison inmates are in vulnerable position, they need some rights for their protection and welfare. That is why they should have rights.

 

[Danoff]

A right is more important if you are in need of it.

What rights do you think you do not need?

Let's take an example, say... freedom of speech. You may not need the right to march down the street with a swastika on your forehead - because you have no desire to do so. But, does that mean you don't need to have that right? You're affected by the curtailment of speech you had no intention of using. I live in a state where it is legal to smoke pot. I don't smoke pot, so you'd think that that doesn't affect me, but it would directly affect me in many ways if CO suddenly started incarcerating people for smoking pot.

I'm still not sure what you're getting at.

Prison inmates are in vulnerable position, they need some rights for their protection and welfare. That is why they should have rights.

I'm in favor of equal rights. You appear to be arguing for need-based rights. Obviously you think this person somehow "needs" his hairpiece. Can you explain that?

 

[eran0004]

What rights do you think you do not need?

It's not a matter of what rights you need, it's a matter of who needs them. If you are in a vulnerable position you need them, because you would suffer without them. A dictator wouldn't suffer without the freedom of speech - he doesn't need it. The opposition would suffer without freedom of speech - they need it.

 

[Danoff]

It's not a matter of what rights you need, it's a matter of who needs them. If you are in a vulnerable position you need them, because you would suffer without them. A dictator wouldn't suffer without the freedom of speech - he doesn't need it. The opposition would suffer without freedom of speech - they need it.

What?

What rights you "need", determines whether you're part of the group that "needs" them does it not? So then it is a matter of what right you think anyone "needs" or does not. So we're determining "need" based on who would suffer without it? How do you define "suffer"? And who gets to determine what would happen? A dictator might think that his opposition would be better off if they did not have freedom of speech - that they "suffer" because of it. Many Muslims (including women) think that women suffer from having the ability to walk in public without a head covering.

...and what's your point?

 

[eran0004]

what's your point?

The point is that rights exist to protect the people who would suffer without them.

 

[Famine]

The point is that rights exist to protect the people who would suffer without them.

That's 'laws' you're thinking of, but then it's no surprise to see you still struggling with the concept of rights a month down the line.

 

[eran0004]

That's 'laws' you're thinking of, but then it's no surprise to see you still struggling with the concept of rights a month down the line.

Yes, laws.

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights. Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (i.e., rights that can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws).

Good to know I'm not struggling alone

 

[TenEightyOne]

That's 'laws' you're thinking of, but then it's no surprise to see you still struggling with the concept of rights a month down the line.

Some rights are bestowed by law or, in other doctrines, by a concept of "natural rights" - I think it's the latter that you're getting at. Natural rights are still a human conception and groups that uphold the philosophy (e.g. Libertarians) apply them as a series of non-jurisprudent "rules" or "laws. Rights only exist in law - with no redress to judgement there is no recognition of the existence or violation of a right (outside the arbitrary "nature" concept).

There, I said it.

 

[Famine]

Some rights are bestowed by law or, in other doctrines, by a concept of "natural rights" - I think it's the latter that you're getting at. Natural rights are still a human conception and groups that uphold the philosophy (e.g. Libertarians) apply them as a series of non-jurisprudent "rules" or "laws. Rights only exist in law - with no redress to judgement there is no recognition of the existence or violation of a right (outside the arbitrary "nature" concept).

There, I said it.

Rights are rights (and objective). Laws are laws (and subjective). Sometimes they are the same, when rights are properly codified, sometimes they are not, and some laws are wrong or immoral, actively denying rights (slavery, the Holocaust, just about everything in North Korea), which is why is important to not much the two together in any discussion about one of the other.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/human-rights.77925/

 

[daan]

A lot of this thread is just splitting hairs.

 

[Famine]

A lot of this thread is just splitting hairs.

And irony, considering hair is one of this guy's number one turn-offs...

 

[Danoff]

And irony, considering hair is one of this guy's number one turn-offs...

too soon.